Park board watchdog mad at Vision Vancouver for pulling park naming report

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Parks advocate Jamie Lee Hamilton is furious at Vision Vancouver’s park commissioners for pulling a report dealing with the city’s park-naming process off the park board’s meeting agenda. The item was to be discussed tonight (March 26) at the Beach Avenue headquarters.

      “If they don’t want the public having any input into democracy, have the balls to come out and say that,” Hamilton, park board candidate in the 2011 and 2008 civic elections, told the Straight by phone. “Because that’s what this smacks of, that they only want democracy for their friends.”

      The report is a staff recommendation for the adoption of a new procedure for the naming of parks that is initiated by staff, relies on a web-based public engagement process, and culminates with a vote at the board level.

      Park board vice chair Aaron Jasper told the Straight off the top that he was unhappy with the way Non-Partisan Association commissioner John Coupar handled the issue.

      “You know what, I don’t know if you’ve read some of the other media stories, but to say I was a bit disappointed that my colleague was trying to politicize this staff report goes without saying,” Jasper said. “He was implying that this was a Vision Vancouver-written report. As I’ve tried to explain on numerous occasions, this is a staff report that, obviously our staff felt that the current process—while it looks good on paper—in terms of a real application is problematic.”

      Staff “felt strongly enough to write a report” suggesting it’s possible to streamline the process while allowing for consultation, Jasper added.

      “We want to engage the public,” he said. “We want to really make sure that this is an open process. The public is not only giving their comment, but also coming up with the ideas. So they felt that they could honour that spirit, but also do something that’s a bit more flexible and more contemporary in terms of using online engagement tools that are more abundant nowadays. That said, and as I’ve said before, I have questions as well. In my mind I think we should be keeping an open mind. Our staff are there to advise us on our procedures and everything from how we design parks to how we name parks. So, I hadn’t drawn any conclusions. Obviously John has been quite vocal with concerns that he had.”

      Jasper confirmed he reached the decision to pull the report in consultation with park board chair Constance Barnes and board general manager Malcolm Bromley.

      “Constance, myself, and the general manager, Malcolm Bromley, really felt that the right course of action here was really to press the reset button.”

      Hamilton was critical of Jasper for involving staff in the discussions.

      “First of all, the park board, it’s my understanding, directs staff,” she said. “Staff just don’t come up with some policy out of the blue; they are directed. The question is, why did Constance Barnes and Aaron Jasper feel that it was necessary to change a policy, a policy that was unanimously adopted by COPE and the NPA back in 2003?”

      Jasper said commissioners are “part-time politicians” that need full-time jobs to support themselves.

      “It is at best naive and at worst disingenuous to suggest that all operational decisions are at the behest and initiative of the board,” Jasper noted.

      Comments

      2 Comments

      You're kidding, right

      Mar 26, 2012 at 6:18pm

      This is a disgrace. Period. Jasper, "disappointed" in Coupar! The man who saved the Bloedel Conservatory?! What a joke this "Chair behind the Chair" is.

      Get "the public" to help name our parks? Do ya think that Vision might not plump that vote with "friends of"? I hear they have some pretty good lists---from inside and outside City Hall.

      Gee. Maybe they can also hand out moe McDonald's and Timmy's coupons to "rock that vote!"

      2nd Nation

      Mar 27, 2012 at 3:25pm

      She's a "parks advocate" now?

      pd - shouldn't that be "parks' advocate"? Or at least "park's advocate"? <looks at the editor ... slowly shakes head>